Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p

Man.

You guys are my brothers.

You've not only occupied America, but you've occupied our hearts and minds. They once said that America was a shining beacon for all others to follow. For the last decade, America's been everything but. But now, you and yours are that beacon.

open_sketchbook wrote:

Shroom, I can't read your idealism as geniune. My brain refuses to process that level of optimism as anything but sarcastic. Are you being serious, or are you trolling? I honestly can't tell, but I feel like I'm being left out of a joke.

These people, thousands of them all over the world, are risking their asses and braving the elements and violence and injury and going out of their comfort zones to do what they think is right. They don't give a shit what derisive fucks say. They're doing it out of principle, because they believe in it. Just look at them. It is things like these that make one optimistic for people.

shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZookShroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medicPink Sugar Heart Attack!

Yes, intellectually you'd know that any revolution or a movement might laterwards turn into shit. Heck, here the dictator Marcos got deposed by a bloodless People's Power revolution that only emplaced a figurehead leader who was part of a family of obscenely wealthy landowners who ended up shooting farmers protesting against them. So, fuck the Aquinos. But how does this change the fact that a bunch of poor ass people faced armed soldiers, poor ass people praying the rosary and praying to god, unarmed men, women and children, and when it came down to it, these poor ass people won. Past, present, future, it doesn't change that moment, it doesn't change that act (or if it does, then fuck it, we're doing this live).

And neither does come what may change the fact that this act of decrying everything wrong in their nation, whilst braving injury and elements, is a good deed.

Fuck it. After seeing the world's greatest superduperpower bomb the shit out of innocent people and invade countries and fuck around, after everything in this past decade, after the world became sick of all the lies and the bullshit and the hypocrisy, just seeing a few good people rail out against everything wrong, that in itself is a wonderful thing.

We all need this, man. Before everything goes crazy. Before the world and all its bullshit catches up. Just this shining moment.

shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZookShroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medicPink Sugar Heart Attack!

Before OWS everything was deficits, deficits, deficits. That is no longer the case. when you have shows like Morning Joe actually acknowledging that these people have a point, that inequality is happening, that these people have legitimate gripes, that the government should do something about the job situation, then that is already some success.

Ok, they haven't completely changed the political situation, and Republicans are still going to block as much as possible (which is a lot). But the Republicans are suffering for it. Look at the various elections in the beginning of November: The Republicans - and their agenda - was absolutely crushed. You can be sure that OWS had something to do with that.

OWS has already changed a lot, and my impression is that they will continue to do so.

Dont make the mistake of thinking there's a distinction between Democrats and Republicans. The GOP is just more honest.

Eh, there is. Both parties might suck corporate cock, but the Republicans also do the same for religious fundamentalists.Which is why the only difference between the two is where there is no corporate interest involved, such as homosexual rights. Other than that you are pretty much correct.

SoS:NBAGALE Force"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

It's all nice and dandy to throw money towards a cause but donating your money to a politician that may or may not support your cause once he is elected is a whole different ball game.

Ray, I'm not sure you grasp the role of money in American politics. The nature of the system has made it quite dependable that politicians will protect the interests of the people who offer them the money they need to stay in office. Also, with enough money you can dominate the outcome of elections So you can just arbitrarily pick people with good hair who already agree with you, and ensure that they win the race.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

What is your obsession with self-immolation? You seem to think its the only form of protest that can actually achieve anything. Explain.

If I had to guess...

He's Singaporean, right? Means of political expression are more restrained, it probably takes a more... out-there mode of expression to get the attention of the government, and there's more Buddhist monks per capita who are actually willing to do things like that. So in his frame of reference, a protest isn't really worth writing home about until there are Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire, because where he lives that's more likely to happen and nothing less will suffice anyway.

Serafina wrote:

Losonti Tokash wrote:

Dont make the mistake of thinking there's a distinction between Democrats and Republicans. The GOP is just more honest.

Eh, there is. Both parties might suck corporate cock, but the Republicans also do the same for religious fundamentalists.Which is why the only difference between the two is where there is no corporate interest involved, such as homosexual rights. Other than that you are pretty much correct.

Republican politicians are more likely to not only suck corporate cock, but also to want to make everyone else do it, compared to Democrats. Relatively few Democrats seem to think that the world is actively made a better place by making corporations more powerful at the government's expense, even if they're willing to do that for the sake of their own political position and to avoid the appearance of promoting "class warfare" or "business-unfriendliness" or whatever.

Also, and this may be more important, the Democratic Party is still the harbor for most of the other elements of the American left- it is the machine that has the potential to take ideas like "being rich does not make you God" and "if the economy leaves 50% or more of the population scrambling to make ends meet, something has gone wrong with the economy," and make those ideas go mainstream. At the moment, this potential is almost totally unrealized and unexplored, but it's there. There are already Democratic politicians who fight against abuses of corporate power and favor changes to decrease corporatism in America. Whereas this will never happen in the Republican Party, not in less than a generation or two.

The best thing that could possibly happen to OWS would be if they succeed in growing into something that begins to co-opt the Democrats. Unfortunately it isn't likely to happen all that fast, but it's a goal for them to aim for as they shake out, organize, and start evolving into groups with real long-range plans.

NYPD expected a max of 10k protesters. Between three and four times that number showed up and overwhelmed the barricades. Police hit a kid over the head and knocked out some teeth for kicking a barricade. Then the police picked up the barricades and used them to assault protesters and members of the press.

Media reports it as "Cops hurt, protesters arrested at unexpectedly small rally." Little to no mention of the mass arrest in San Francisco, the LAPD tearing down tents they'd helped erect less than two hours beforehand along with aiming shotguns at protesters, or anything about how Occupy Philly agreed to move to a different location suggested by the city and were threatened by police because they hadn't gotten a permit yet. LRADs have been deployed against protesters and bystanders since at least Tuesday, but it gets reported as them being used to "broadcast" across the park. People get sprayed in the face with fire extinguishers, causing vomiting and risking asphyxiation, media commends the police for not using force. Extended livestream footage shows rows of police with no nametags or badge numbers who refuse to identify themselves.

Dont make the mistake of thinking there's a distinction between Democrats and Republicans. The GOP is just more honest.

Look, criticizing the Democrats is fair. But saying there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans is idiotic, melodramatic horse shit.

The truth is that both parties are very diverse, but that on average, the Democrats are far less inclined to base policy on the Bible and far more inclined to recognize that taxes and regulation are not inherently evil.

Right, which is why they've fought so hard to oppose these things...nevermind. they'll throw a bone every so often and talk a lot, but their actions are the important part. At best, they are incompetent and completely useless. Of course, the fact that Obama got way more donations from the financial industry doesn't speak highly of him.

The fact is that of the two major parties, one is bought and paid for by financial interests, has no interest in protecting workers' rights or the basic rights of any of the 99%, and the other is made up of Republicans.

I repeat: if the people of OWS want to win, ultimately they are probably going to do it by taking over the machinery of the Democratic Party, or a large part of that machinery. It may not be possible until after election reforms and campaign finance reforms are in place. It may not be possible for years. But this is how society changes- ideas go from being the notions of a relatively small minority of protestors to being the platforms of major political parties.

The right has been quite successful at doing this- at taking outrage from the farther-right parts of the nation and parlaying it into a political agenda. The left used to be good at it, but hasn't done it extensively in years.

Dismissing the political parties entirely is understandable at the moment, but a bad idea in the long run if you aren't prepared to do an about-face when the movement gets big enough to have a good chance of electing its own politicians.

You're also wrong with point b), and indeed I wasn't lying at all- you are still treating protest as inferior to voting by assuming that the end-stage is a vote. Votes are part of democracy, but there are so many reasons that you might vote for someone that you can't translate your opinions into anything particularly concrete unless you're an actual single-issue voter. Protest, on the other hand, allows you to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders. They are equally important as a means of seizing the reins of power and trying to direct the state.

In short, you support anarchy; because you are advocating going outside of pre-defined peaceful means of resolving issues and instead make up new rules are you go along.

There is also no widespread clamour in America to solve its internal problems via anarchy. Therefore, even bringing it up is stupid.

You are fucking insane. Not in a medical sense, no. Your brain resides in an entirely different world, kinda like a shitty version of The Phantom Tollbooth, where instead of exploring the worlds of numbers, letters, and the senses, we explore a hell of authoritarianism, whereby protest and civil disobedience are "going outside of pre-defined peaceful means of resolving issues and instead make up new rules are you go along." Whatever sent you into that dire and nightmare realm was a terrible event indeed, but it certainly seems like you have no intention of ever leaving.

You are entirely relying on ad-hominem, instead of even attempting to debate. If you are even attempting to debate, you would at least attempt to disprove that your position is one that supports anarchy (which it does, given that you are insisting that steps must be taken outside of the existing political system).

Right, which is why they've fought so hard to oppose these things...nevermind. they'll throw a bone every so often and talk a lot, but their actions are the important part. At best, they are incompetent and completely useless. Of course, the fact that Obama got way more donations from the financial industry doesn't speak highly of him.

The fact is that of the two major parties, one is bought and paid for by financial interests, has no interest in protecting workers' rights or the basic rights of any of the 99%, and the other is made up of Republicans.

The big difference is that you have a large group of people within the Democratic party who have actively tried to move the party to the left and enact legislation that helps counteract the extreme corporatism and the role of money on politics in the US. For example Dailykos.com is extremely active in the OWS movement (the video of that guy blasting the Fox News reporter is and has been very active on Dailykos.com for years. The problem is that the majority of the party leadership acts very differently in comparison to what the party membership wants to do.

These (along with unions, and other leftish groups) have a lot of experience in making stuff happen, organizing shit, etc. Ignoring them because the party leadership ignored them for a long time and did what they wanted to is stupid and doesn't help anyone.

Zinegata, I must be missing some part of your argument. Let me explain my difficulty.

I know of two basic models for how to run a legal system and a society. One is "everything which is not permitted is forbidden:" the authoritarian 'closed society' described by Karl Popper, in which all ideas, activities, and forms of expression not sanctioned by the state are considered subversive and therefore banned.

The other is "everything which is not forbidden is permitted:" the 'open society.' In an open society, you are allowed to do as you please, unless someone can come up with a specific reason to write a particular law that bans what you do. Ideas, activities, and forms of expression can exist without the state's permission.

In the West, people mostly like to think they live in open societies, and mostly think closed societies are a bad thing. I know I think those things. I imagine you do, too.

But I'm not sure whether you're drawing a distinction between "anarchy" and "open society." In an open society, it makes no sense to say "OWS's actions are not state sanctioned, therefore they are anarchist." Because there are all sorts of things the state doesn't sanction which are not anarchist. LARPers' actions aren't state-sanctioned; that doesn't make LARPers anarchists. Church ice cream socials aren't state sanctioned, nor are roller derbies, bachelor parties, nor meetings of the Rotary club. But all these things are legal even without express permission from the state, and participating in them does not make you an anarchist.

Bakustra is not advocating actions that are not merely "not state-sanctioned". He is advocating means that are clearly illegal.

Again:

Quote:

You're also wrong with point b), and indeed I wasn't lying at all- you are still treating protest as inferior to voting by assuming that the end-stage is a vote. Votes are part of democracy, but there are so many reasons that you might vote for someone that you can't translate your opinions into anything particularly concrete unless you're an actual single-issue voter. Protest, on the other hand, allows you to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders. They are equally important as a means of seizing the reins of power and trying to direct the state.

You know that part where Bakustra says that voting is not the end stage? Take a look at the word "revolution", because that's where it's gonna head.

Bakustra is saying that protests allow people to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders, and hence allowing you to seize the reins of powers... but you do not seize the reins of power by "debating" the other side into submission by protests. That's a bullshit idea and you know it. Protests that "seize the reins of power" without voting as the end state are ultimately revolutions - which in some cases can end peacefully (EDSA, Velvet, etc), in many cases violently (i.e. French Revolution).

In a working democratic state, protests have largely been pushed further and further to the foreground in importance largely because of the power of accurate polling. It is silly to think that you need protests to "articulate" a position - when polls already do so regularly. The protests in Winsconsin did jack squat to stop the anti-union laws from being signed, but the widespread anger against the laws (which showed up in the polls even before the protests) is triggering a more effective backlash - in the form of recall elections which could cost Walker his job.

So again, protests are as important or even more importan than voting in a working democratic system? That's bullshit. Bluntly, lobbyists have been more effective at playing these influence and articulation games, and they don't need to organize protests.

Protests are largely useless in a working democratic state. Protests that attempt to "seize the reins of power" ultimately lead to revolution (which is again the apparent hope of some OWS members, which is what is discreditting the movement) unless the organizers get half a brain and realize they should have formed a political party and gain votes from the get-go instead. Denying that voting is the end state is to deny yourself any chance of victory, or an admission that you're advocating revolution.

Quote:

Nor does it make sense to say "OWS is not a political campaign aimed at making you vote for a specific candidate, therefore their actions are extra-legal and they are a pack of anarchists."

If their aim is to "change" things without going through the ballot box, then they are either one of two things:

1) Very stupid, as change in a democratic system must go through the ballot box. Making a lot of noise without getting the right people elected is just that - noise without results.

2) Anarchists trying to subvert the ballot box.

Quote:

They are not, by and large, anarchists. The proof of this is simple: they want there to be laws and government.

Every revolutionary eventually wants laws and governments so that they can run the country the way they want to. That's the point of a revolution. Topple the old system and replace it with a new that conforms with what you want

The purpose of voting is to give people an opportunity to elect - and if necessary remove - candidates so that they can get the laws and kind of government they want to.

Quote:

So if I engage in peaceful, legal means of expression that are not on the menu of "pre-defined" traditional ways to achieve political power, how is that going outside the law, or being anarchist? If TV ads and mass mailings are "pre-defined," but rallies and protests are not, then how does that make protests and rallies inferior to mass mailings and TV ads?

Because again, if you do not ultimately aim for changing the results in the ballot box, you are not accomplishing anything.

If you want to affect change ANYWAY without going through the ballot box,

You're the people who keep panicking things like Gitmo will result in a "slippery slope" to a police state. It's my turn to say this is a slippery slope towards anarchy, and a pointless one at that unless they actually start changing votes!

Quote:

I'm not one of Bakustra's biggest fans, but I don't get why you were calling him an anarchist.

Would you prefer I tell him he can choose between being stupid or an anarchist the next time, and still have the same result of a steaming pile of bullshit ad-hominems?

Because I will note that he totally disregarded everything else I posted in favor of cherry-picking; because he's not interested to debate. He's just interested in mud-slinging.

Last edited by Zinegata on 2011-11-18 02:15pm, edited 3 times in total.

In a working democratic state, protests have largely been pushed further and further to the foreground in importance largely because of the power of accurate polling. It is silly to think that you need protests to "articulate" a position - when polls already do so regularly. The protests in Winsconsin did jack squat to stop the anti-union laws from being signed, but the widespread anger against the laws (which showed up in the polls even before the protests) is triggering a more effective backlash - in the form of recall elections which could cost Walker his job.

So you're saying that the recall elections would have happened based purely on opinion polls and that the protests were irrelevant?

Actually, quote walls are retarded so let's get to your general point here: who was more important to the Civil Rights Movement, the protestors or LBJ? CHOOSE CAREFULLY.

Also, I wanted to know if you actually believed that the majority of colonial subjects didn't mind their brutal oppression because they didn't rebel every other year?

Also also, I'd like some evidence for these points if you don't mind.

Additionally you are ~partially~ correct that OWS is composed of anarchist. But they're Actual Anarchists who fucking love democracy so much they tend to use a consensus based model!

Protests are largely useless in a working democratic state. Protests that attempt to "seize the reins of power" ultimately lead to revolution (which is again the apparent hope of some OWS members, which is what is discreditting the movement) unless the organizers get half a brain and realize they should have formed a political party and gain votes from the get-go instead. Denying that voting is the end state is to deny yourself any chance of victory, or an admission that you're advocating revolution.

(I snipped most of the beginning of your post because it was just bullshit rambling with little basis in reality)

Seirously, you are paranoid delusional if you think this. Protests are useless? Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights movement? American Indian rights? Women's rights? Student activism in the 1930s? Union strikes and protests during the end of the so-called Gilded Age that helped stimulate anti-trust regulations? If you seriously think that protest has NEVER played a role in shaping the democratic process then you are a moron, plain and simple. A quick Google search brings up dozens of examples. Or, hey, if that's not good enough, how about a scholarly article on the subject? How about another? And another?

Quote:

If their aim is to "change" things without going through the ballot box, then they are either one of two things:

1) Very stupid, as change in a democratic system must go through the ballot box. Making a lot of noise without getting the right people elected is just that - noise without results.

History itself has shown otherwise. Hell, just a couple of years ago a little thing called the Tea Party began as a series of protests, and is now a manifest force in American politics. Guess what? Protests and voting AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. And there is a long and established history of the latter affecting the former in our country! Wow! How about that? Welcome to American History 101.

Quote:

2) Anarchists trying to subvert the ballot box.

Yeah, that's the ONLY other option. Nice black/white fallacy.

Quote:

Every revolutionary eventually wants laws and governments so that they can run the country the way they want to. That's the point of a revolution. Topple the old system and replace it with a new that conforms with what you want

The purpose of voting is to give people an opportunity to elect - and if necessary remove - candidates so that they can get the laws and kind of government they want to.

Protests =/= revolution. The vast, vast majority of protests in the history of Western civilization have NOT led to revolutions. Many of them, however, have led to increased public awareness of a certain issue, and in cases have completely changed the system.

Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pmPosts: 21868Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Maybe he's just mad that they're not occupying it in properly American terms - I mean I dont think anything has been blown up by aerial bombing yet, has it?

Of course not - have you seen how much it costs to rent an airplane these days?

(I am kidding)

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid. - Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pmPosts: 21868Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

ray245 wrote:

Quote:

In the past, those protests supposedly led to the ending of the Vietnam War or some shit, and desegregation and other stuff.

Didn't people self-immolate themselves in the Vietnam war protest?

If I recall, that was more monks in Vietnam than US protestors in the US. But it's been awhile, so the memory is a bit fuzzy around the edges, and in any case, mom and dad weren't letting us kids watch the nightly news due to the amount of carnage being shown and discussed on a daily basis. (When my oldest sisters hit high school they were allowed to watch but yeah, really, it probably would not have been a good idea for, say, a 5 year old)

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid. - Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

NYPD expected a max of 10k protesters. Between three and four times that number showed up and overwhelmed the barricades. Police hit a kid over the head and knocked out some teeth for kicking a barricade. Then the police picked up the barricades and used them to assault protesters and members of the press.

Video? Third party witnesses?

A few posts back you made the comment that officers were seizing and destroying video and that the video that did survive doesn't show us anything. That's an impressive accomplishment for the police given the thickness of these crowds and the amount of confusion that usually accompanies them.

Quote:

Media reports it as "Cops hurt, protesters arrested at unexpectedly small rally." Little to no mention of the mass arrest in San Francisco, the LAPD tearing down tents they'd helped erect less than two hours beforehand along with aiming shotguns at protesters, or anything about how Occupy Philly agreed to move to a different location suggested by the city and were threatened by police because they hadn't gotten a permit yet. LRADs have been deployed against protesters and bystanders since at least Tuesday, but it gets reported as them being used to "broadcast" across the park. People get sprayed in the face with fire extinguishers, causing vomiting and risking asphyxiation, media commends the police for not using force. Extended livestream footage shows rows of police with no nametags or badge numbers who refuse to identify themselves.

Nahhhh, nothing wrong here. Damn kids.

I take it these allegations are all from second hand sources and that you did not see them first hand? The same seems to be true for the few others reporting similar occurences. So, how do we know these are accurate? Do you trust these people? Are they close personal friends of yours?

If these allegations are true then I hope the officers involved and their leadership spend a long time in jail.

Do you at least have a link to that extended footage of the no name tags? Los, do you have any evidence at all? That's what bothers me about these type of posts. I have no problem exposing police corruption or brutality. I do have a problem with making unfalsifiable allegations. You have to understand that to me there's the possibility that people like Einhander are providing you this information and therefore can't help themself but exaggerate to the point of dishonesty.

Point there, KS, how do you provide proper video documentation of police seizing and destroying video cameras en masse? That's why they do it. The ones in the first rank are the ones who have the good camera angles, and they're the ones who are most vulnerable to illegal camera seizure. You're demanding video documentation of the act of seizure of devices capable of making video documentation.

Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.

Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Broomstick.-'It's amazing what you can pack into a human rectum.'

Point there, KS, how do you provide proper video documentation of police seizing and destroying video cameras en masse? That's why they do it.

Fair question. Is anyone else reporting this occurrence besides Los in the SDN forum? Also, you may or may not remember the Oscar Grant shooting in which officers were actively seizing video recording devices. Some video still made it to the internet. Though I guess it is possible that the police managed 100% efficiency. So, I'll accept any written documentation of this act. Surely, those people whose property was smashed have at least blogged about it.

There's extensive media reports of news choppers being forced down, press passes revoked for being in the area, and reporters being assaulted by NYPD and assisted by protesters. Theother99 live stream recorded a whole shitload of goings on and the police have admitted to deploying LRADs. On Tuesday they did not allow any media to see what was going on in the park and placed a bus between the press pen and the park. These are things actually reported by the media itself.

The NYPD even defied a restraining order forbidding them from Liberty Plaza and will likely never face any repercussions. I have zero faith that these police will be punished seeing how the Oscar Grant execution resulted in a cop serving an entire 8 months.

Sorry, but the vast majority of the violence is being done by police to protesters. This is not me going "well I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy." This is dozens of people telling me "this is what happened when I was there." Go look up the video with the Frank Sinatra song to see a group of unidentified officers tackle a guy for planting an american flag and punching a woman in the face who was holding up the bill of rights. The video of that vet who had his spleen ruptured just leaked to the Guardian. That kid who kicked a barricade who was hit over the head with teeth knocked out and blood streaming down his face. The scores of people arrested for resisting arrest but charged with nothing else. The police seeking out and arresting retired police captain Ray Lewis.

This is what comes out even after organized attempts to suppress both the media and protesters from documenting the events.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum